Posted by ARomano on 3/9/2013 2:57:00 AM (view original):The question I posed was really this: Should there be some preference or advantage to the former coach when he wants to return, especially if he was successful and "exceeding expectations."

I get the fact that it's my fault I forgot to move a season over from another world to secure the spot, believe me. But thanks to everyone that piled on without pity...much appreciated.

There really shouldn't need to be a preference for the former coach. Its like having a project assigned at the beginning of the year and then asking for more time when you didn't get it done on time. Just get it done and it shouldn't be a problem.

thats a good analogy, except thats work (or school) and this is a game... which makes all the difference. i honestly dont have a problem with the current system, but a lot of coaches do forget to renew, and that is something that is pretty disruptive to their experience and to the game as a whole. its luck of the draw if you realize in time to get it back (most get it back). that was a good improvement, over having no shot of getting it back (before resume comparison ensues), but i would be for further improvement. seemingly, coaches either forget or dont realize they dont have seasons, but frequently go to check EEs right after the world rolls, and right then many coaches get the job back. but some dont. i could at least get behind a change (if seble wanted to make it) to let coaches reclaim the job (even with other applicants) until noon. this would give most coaches the chance to get their job back, while leaving the other applicants 12 hours until any resume based positions are awarded.

but in essence, i do think its a fair opinion that the current system is reasonable and nothing should be done beyond that. i just have the opinion that people make stupid mistakes and when the context is a purely for-fun game, if you can make those mistakes less painful, that would be great.

If they fix firings I would be more on board with this. As it is, this is one of the few ways to move into the elite jobs. Sucks for the coach who forgot, I agree, but there is a pretty big banner and a message from the AD and stuff reminding a coach to renew.

Honestly it's easy to say its your fault, deal with it. But in this case I do sympathize with the OP. 10+ teams... I've had my fair share of trouble managing 3. I can't imagine running 3 to 4 times that many teams. That's time that's money and lots of hard work to be successful. So losing a program in this manner is stupid. Especially if you applied in time and lost out to a less successful coach.

Posted by mchristman on 3/9/2013 11:09:00 AM (view original):When one door closes another one opens. ARomano, losing your team is unforunate, but embrace the challenge. This will allow you to put your stamp on another program. Good luck!

Posted by ike1024 on 3/9/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):Jesus. You guys are brutal. Do you really not think there should be a built-in advantage for the returning coach?

All of the real-life analogy attempts are beyond flawed.

No, but I think that his resume should be equally weighed against those others applying for the job, and may the best resume win. If that didn't happen, then the process needs to be reviewed and corrected.

Dude, did you read my first paragraph because it addresses what you're questioning.

If a guy forgets to renew, it should be a fair application process by which the user who "lost" their school should have their resume weighed EQUALLY with the rest of the applicants, just because they coached at X school previously, doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Again, you're trying to write off the fact that he didn't renew here, but the fact is, if he did, we're not even close to remotely having this conversation.

Lastly, my logic is quite simple, one guy paid for his team, the other didn't...pay for your team, renew on time, and do whatever the **** you want...not hard...

Yes it sucks for ARomano, but the situation is over and done with...someone else got the job, if the same thing happened to me and I didn't see any other teams adhering to my rather strict criterion to want to coach them, I'd probably quit and/or ask for a refund. Again, we're already at aftermath stage, ARomano should be looking at what's next.

And let me re-post your next quote:
"Yes it sucks for ARomano, but the situation is over and done with...someone else got the job, if the same thing happened to me and I didn't see any other teams adhering to my rather strict criterion to want to coach them, I'd probably quit and/or ask for a refund. Again, we're already at aftermath stage, ARomano should be looking at what's next."

So obviously you missed the point. You seem to think that you can say something, then say a bunch of other things, and that people are only supposed to respond to what you want them to. I'm responding to this point, because you seem to think this matter is resolved. I disagree. I think the system is flawed if two relatively equal coaches apply , one is the most recent coach, and that person doesn't have some advantage in getting the job. I think a lot of people would agree. Obviously some also disagree. But I think it's a point worth discussing. I don't really care if you don't.

And I don't believe that Aromano should get THIS job back now. But I think it should spark conversation about whether this should be changed in the future.

Look at it this way - the previous coach did have a HUGE advantage over any other coach because he was guaranteed the job if he just renewed. There's no real life counterpart to this so no sense trying to go down that road.

So given that, does anyone feel it is worth development time to change this part of the game? That's what every well run business must consider. Not, would this make things better, but is this an important thing to put development dollars into at any point in the future.